|
Author
|
Topic: Star Wars 3D
|
|
|
|
|
Bradford A Moore
Master Film Handler
Posts: 272
From: Provincetown, Ma
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted December 06, 2011 07:20 AM
I just found out about this last night, and it saddens me beyond belief. It all about money. It is only the birth of every classic film as we know it being reissued in 3D. I wish 3D would go away. It was fun as a gimmick once in a while. I love the idea of these films being reissued to the big screen don't get me wrong! Star Wars came out 35 years ago next year. In honor of that bring it back, and make it look as great as you can without messing it up.
I can just see films like Casablanca, The Wizard Of Oz, and Gone With The Wind being next. We should preserve our classic films, and be proud of them for what they are. Its moments like this, that I'm glad I do a weekly film series on reel film, which is the way it was, and always will be. Kids who come are very interested to check out the projectors that I use etc. People don't know how to to go and enjoy a simple fun night at the movies anymore. People like George Lucas should know better.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin Jones
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1269
From: Thetford , Norfolk,England
Registered: May 2008
|
posted December 06, 2011 10:43 AM
I'm glad that Lee used the word "makeover", because that is all it can be!
And John, of course, is TOTALLY right!
It is NOT possible to create TRUE stereoscopic films from a single "flat" image. To create a realistic 3 dimensional image it is necessary to record two DIFFERENT viewpoints of the subject matter at the same point in time and present those two viewpoints in perfect synchronism at the point of exhibition.
Anything LESS than that can only create a crude pastiche of the depth of the scene.
It is true that one can create true stereo images of a static subject by moving the camera laterally and suitably aligning two positive prints from the record. This can be made to work with a MOVING picture of a STATIC subject by tracking the camera laterally, but if there is ANY movement of a element within that STATIC scene that element will not resolve as a stereoscopic object satisfactorily.
If anyone out there thinks it is possible, I suggest they study the subject in depth (no pun intended!)and then try to explain how to make a one-eyed man see stereoscopically.!
IF the studios can find the original two strip negatives(or "under over" or "side by side" ones made from them) or positive prints of the movies PROPERLY made then we can look forward to some genuine "3-D" presentations on disc, TV or cinema screen. If, also the studios can be persuaded to make new films PROPERLY in the future then we will be spared the digital jiggery-pokery that is currently being dished up for "3-D".
NOTE: If IMAX can produce genuine "3-D", then there is nothing to stop others doing it if they are prepared to do it
Martin
--------------------
Retired TV Service Engineer
Ongoing interest in Telecine....
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David M. Ballew
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 113
From: Burbank, CA USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted December 06, 2011 11:34 PM
I would like to respectfully respond to some of your comments, which I have read and considered with great interest.
You need a stereo pair of cameras to get a true 3-D effect.
Nowadays, this is not necessarily true. Some really amazing work is being done to synthesize stereo imagery from existing flat films. And those doing the work are making great strides, improving their results day by day. But making a proper job of it takes time and money, two things American movie studios simply aren’t willing to lavish on every project.
I myself doubt whether Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, or Gone With the Wind will be converted to stereo anytime in the near future, as I should think the young moviegoers most interested in 3-D are not likely to embrace films (and film techniques) of a bygone era. I don’t say I’m pleased about that, but it’s a fact of life.
Let this be a quick fad and be done with it already.
Some folks date the current 3-D boom from the release of The Polar Express in 3-D IMAX in November 2004. Others date it from the release of Chicken Little in November 2005, which marked the debut of Real-D 3-D projection. Depending on which of those dates you prefer, the current spate of 3-D production has run six or seven years at this writing, with no end in sight.
Compare all that to the 3-D boom of the early 1950s, which (arguably) ran from November 1952, with the release of Bwana Devil, to June 1954, with the release of Gog. That’s about 19 months. Even if we wish to claim an end to the 1950s wave of 3-D with the release of Revenge of the Creature in May 1955 (a lone 3-D release from Universal long after the other studios had altogether given up on the format), that comes to only two and a half years of 3-D production. Unlike the so-called 3-D Renaissance of the early '50s, our current spate of 3-D filmmaking cannot by any stretch be considered a quick fad.
It may already be obvious, but let me state explicitly and respectfully that I am very much in favor of stereoscopic 3-D films. This is a revolution that has been a long time in coming, and come it must. It is the next logical step in the progression of cinema.
Thanks for hearing me out.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
